skip to main content
10.1145/3427423.3427464acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessietConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Students' acceptance towards kit-build concept map authoring tool in supporting learning of english reading comprehension

Published:28 December 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

In facing the new pandemic situation, students and educators had to switch their learning activities into online learning and quickly adapt the educational technologies to support distance learning. Sophisticating innovations in educational technologies are highly required to overcome change. Delivering digital content and activities in a distance learning environment has potential advantages in improving the students' engagement in learning. Concept mapping is known to support students' learning process and help them learn better. A concept mapping authoring tool built to support learning with the Kit-Build concept map framework has been developed to incorporate computer technologies into digital concept mapping activities. This research investigates to what extent the students' technology adoption towards the Kit-Build concept map authoring tool as a digital concept mapping tool supports the students to learn English reading comprehension. This research incorporates the Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate students' acceptance towards the tool and uses three external variables, i.e., compatibility, habit, and enjoyment for the TAM model. Most of the result presented in this research is consistent with the original TAM study. Furthermore, compatibility and enjoyment are also identified to significantly affect the students' adoption of the Kit-Build concept map authoring tool.

References

  1. I. Ajzen and M. Fishbein. 2000. Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. European review of social psychology 11, 1 (2000), 1--33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. M Alsharo, Y. Alnsour, and M. Alabdallah. 2020. How habit affects continuous use: evidence from Jordan's national health information system. Informatics for Health and Social Care 45, 1 (2020), 43--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. C. T. Chang, J. Hajiyev, and C. R. Su. 2017. Examining the students' behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach. Computers & Education 111 (2017), 128--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S.H. Choshaly. 2019. Applying innovation attributes to predict purchase intention for the eco-labeled products: A Malaysian case study. International Journal of Innovation Science 11 (2019), 583--599. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Á. H. Crespo, M. M. G. de los Salmones, I. R. del Bosque, et al. 2013. Influence of users' perceived compatibility and their prior experience on B2C e-commerce acceptance. In Electronic business and marketing. Springer, New York, 103--123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. B.J. Daley, A.J. Canãs, and T. Stark-Schweitzer. 2007. CmapTools: Integrating teaching, learning, and evaluation in online courses. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2007, 113 (2007), 37--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. F. D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace 1. Journal of applied social psychology 22, 14 (1992), 1111--1132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. E. Erdem, A. Yilmaz, and Ö. Ö. Oskay. 2009. The effect of concept mapping on meaningful learning of atom and bonding. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 1, 1 (2009), 1586--1590.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. M. P. Gagnon, E. Orruno, J. Asua, A. B. Abdeljelil, and J. Emparanza. 2012. Using a modified technology acceptance model to evaluate healthcare professionals' adoption of a new telemonitoring system. Telemedicine and e-Health 18, 1 (2012), 54--59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. A. Granić and N. Marangunić. 2019. Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology 50, 5 (2019), 2572--2593.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. T. Hirashima, K. Yamasaki, H. Fukuda, and H. Funaoi. 2015. Framework of Kit-Build Concept Map for Automatic Diagnosis and Its Preliminary Use. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 10(1,17) (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. S. H. Hong and J. H. Yu. 2018. Identification of external variables for the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in the assessment of BIM application for mobile devices. MS&E 401, 1 (2018), 012027.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. Hubert, M. Blut, C. Brock, C. Backhaus, and T. Eberhardt. 2017. Acceptance of smartphone-based mobile shopping: Mobile benefits, customer characteristics, perceived risks, and the impact of application context. Psychology & Marketing 34, 2 (2017), 175--194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. G. J. Hwang, F. R. Kuo, N. S. Chen, and H. J. Ho. 2014. Effects of an integrated concept mapping and web-based problem-solving approach on students' learning achievements, perceptions and cognitive loads. Computers & Education 71 (2014), 77--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. Katagall, R. Dadde, R. H. Goudar, and S. Rao. 2015. Concept Mapping in Education and Semantic Knowledge Representation: an Illustrative Survey. In Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 48. Interscience Institute of Management and Technology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 638--643.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. R. A. Latif, R. Mohamed, A. Dahlan, and M. Z. Mat Nor. 2016. Concept Mapping as a Teaching Tool on Critical Thinking Skills and Academic Performance of Diploma Nursing Students. Education in Medicine Journal 8, 1 (2016), 67--74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. B. A. Leauby, K. A. Szabat, and J. D. Maas. 2010. Concept mapping---An empirical study in introductory financial accounting. Accounting Education: an international journal 19, 3 (2010), 279--300.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. F. Moksony. 1990. Small is beautiful. The use and interpretation of R2 in social research. Szociológiai Szemle Special Issue (1990), 130--138.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Y. Y. Mun and Y. Hwang. 2003. Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International journal of human-computer studies 59, 4 (2003), 431--449. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. N. Nistor, D. Stanciu, T. Lerche, and E. Kiel. 2019. "I am fine with any technology, as long as it doesn't make trouble, so that I can concentrate on my study": A case study of university students' attitude strength related to educational technology acceptance. British Journal of Educational Technology 50, 5 (2019), 2557--2571.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Y. Park, H. Son, and C. Kim. 2012. Investigating the determinants of construction professionals' acceptance of web-based training: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Automation in construction 22 (2012), 377--386.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. A. Pinandito, H. M. Az-Zahra, T. Hirashima, and Y. Hayashi. 2019. User Experience Evaluation on Computer-Supported Concept Map Authoring Tool of Kit-Build Concept Map Framework. In 2019 International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology (SIET). IEEE, IEEE, New York, 289--294.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. H. Rafique, A. O. Almagrabi, A. Shamim, F. Anwar, and A. K. Bashir. 2020. Investigating the acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education 145 (2020), 103732.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. E. M. Rogers. 2010. Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. S. A. Salloum, A. Qasim Mohammad Alhamad, M. Al-Emran, A. Abdel Monem, and K. Shaalan. 2019. Exploring Students' Acceptance of E-Learning Through the Development of a Comprehensive Technology Acceptance Model. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 128445--128462.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. S. J. H. Shiau, C. Y. Huang, C. L. Yang, and J. N. Juang. 2018. A derivation of factors influencing the innovation diffusion of the OpenStreetMap in STEM education. Sustainability 10, 10 (2018), 3447.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. I. Stoica, S. Moraru, and C. Miron. 2011. Concept maps, a must for the modern teaching-learning process. Romanian Reports in Physics 63, 2 (2011), 567--576.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. T. Teo. 2009. Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education 52, 2 (2009), 302--312. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. H. C. Triandis. 1980. Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior.. In Nebraska symposium on motivation, Vol. 27. University of Nebraska Press, US, 195--259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Students' acceptance towards kit-build concept map authoring tool in supporting learning of english reading comprehension

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          SIET '20: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology
          November 2020
          277 pages
          ISBN:9781450376051
          DOI:10.1145/3427423

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 28 December 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          SIET '20 Paper Acceptance Rate45of57submissions,79%Overall Acceptance Rate45of57submissions,79%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader